I almost instigated this debate, but I figure it's really a matter of fact (one way or the other).

I simply present two reasons why this is likely the case. I would be interested if anyone can present statistics to the contrary.

1) Instigators tend to not frame their debates well. That is, they have a topic in mind, but tend to obfuscate that topic and, as such, tend to lose on topicality/the meaning of their resolution.

2) Challengers are likely to only accept debates which they think they have a good chance of winning. As such, the overwhelming amount of poorly framed resolutions leaves instigators open to a wide array of attacks from challengers that see technical problems with their resolution.

At 2/6/2013 12:41:59 AM, KroneckerDelta wrote:I almost instigated this debate, but I figure it's really a matter of fact (one way or the other).

I simply present two reasons why this is likely the case. I would be interested if anyone can present statistics to the contrary.

1) Instigators tend to not frame their debates well. That is, they have a topic in mind, but tend to obfuscate that topic and, as such, tend to lose on topicality/the meaning of their resolution.

Not if they are good debaters, or, at least, have experience in formal debates.

2) Challengers are likely to only accept debates which they think they have a good chance of winning. As such, the overwhelming amount of poorly framed resolutions leaves instigators open to a wide array of attacks from challengers that see technical problems with their resolution.

And if instigators only create debates they think they will win, why is there an edge one way or the other?

All in all, I would say you are at a disadvantage as the instigator due to poor framing, but are at a huge advantage because the instigator has had all the time they want to prepare for the debate, while the contender only has a finite time to prepare, and likely significantly less.

I would guess the win ratio is more of a wash, with the biggest variabe being actual skills of the debators in question.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

According to YYW, I bullied his cousin off the site breaking him down to tears. Where is the public admonishment thread demanding I am banned for my actions?

In the referenced debate, Ore_Ele gives the stats: "Of the many thousands of debates on Debate.org, 13,285 have not ended in a draw. Of those, the Instigator has won 4,578 of them and the Contender has won 8,680 of them." Clearly the contender has an advantage.

The version of Elo used on DDO (innovated by Ore_Ele) gives bonus points to the Instigator as compensation. If you contend and win against an opponent with a low Elo score, you may lose points even if you win the debate.

Exactly why the contender has an advantage is not clear. Many people judging debates think the Instigator has the burden of proof, which roughly means proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than proof by a preponderance of evidence.

I think that an important factor is that a challenge is more likely to be accepted by a debater who is very knowledgeable on the subject, whereas the Instigator is more likely to just be interested in the subject rather than expert in it. In an open challenge, there are thousands of members who might respond, and some of them are likely to be quite expert.

At 2/6/2013 11:34:03 AM, RoyLatham wrote:Exactly why the contender has an advantage is not clear. Many people judging debates think the Instigator has the burden of proof, which roughly means proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than proof by a preponderance of evidence.

I think this is a major issue with voting on DDO. The burden of proof is a very different concept from the spectrum of doubt. Many people don't seem to realize this because they are stuck in the criminal justice system box. The burden of proof is simply a matter of whose responsibility it is to prove their case. The spectrum of doubt is a measure of how convincing their argument must be. Claiming that someone must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to win a debate is silly. It is like telling the home team that they lost the game because they only outscored their opponent by 9 runs, not 10.